@InvestWin @risktransformer, From all publication, AirAsia & AAX share resources and same HQ address and management team is headed by similar personalities. Especially the leadership, they know how to make AirAsia profitable; but AAX is losing money most years, all these raise my doubts.
@MK4872 supersaiyan, aiyo....got good lobang intro to me la....what stock code ar? i look see look see worth investing mou.....promise if make money, i belanja teh tarik geh
MK4872,
Try KLCC (5235SS)
RM 8.15 it's also giving out constants Dividend and Income Distribution. All my 7 Top REITS has exceeded by expectation. Collectively ...Good Double Digit Margin too :)
KUALA LUMPUR (May 25): Low cost carrier AirAsia Bhd and its long-haul sister company AirAsia X Bhd (AAX) are not considering a merger, according to the co-founders of both the low cost carriers.
At a press conference today, AirAsia Group chief executive officer Tan Sri Tony Fernandes said the merger was never brought to the board of directors, and the management remain in their belief that both short and long haul operations have to be separated.
"AirAsia's position is very clear, the board has never discussed this and there is no merger at all," he said.
"The whole purpose of setting up AAX as a separate company, is because we believe it should be separated, and 10 years on we still believe that," he added.
Last week, local media reported that there will be a possible merger between the two companies.
Today AirAsia Group's executive chairman Datuk Kamarudin Meranun also clarified that it is premature to talk about merger between the two entity, and AAX should remains focus on improving its profitability.
"In AirAsia everything is possible, but I made it very clear that we should focus on AAX's profitability strength first, and the issue has never been discussed at the board," he said.
@Mabel & @InvestWin, even though both AAX & AirAsia Group (AAG) are managed by Tony Fernandez & his team, their results are very different (AAX huge loss but AAG very profitable) for the following reasons:
1. They serve different market segments: AAX long haul travelers to destinations outside ASEAN region whereas AAG travelers within ASEAN (nearer to home country) & India plus Japan. Destinations (or regions) further away from home country (Malaysia) are more competitive (harder to make profit).... have to compete with airlines of many different countries. Long haul travelers tend to be more wealthy people & prefer full service airlines while AAG cater to the less wealthy customers who tend to prefer low cost airlines.
2. Destinations (or regions) outside of Malaysia are less profitable (as can be seen in the financial results of AA Thailand, AA Indonesia, AA India, etc.) because AA does not have monopoly outside of Malaysia whereas AAB (Malaysia) contributed 62% revenue & 92% profit of AAG because it is almost a monopoly for AA within Malaysia. Losses in Indonesia, India, Vietnam & other countries were covered by huge profit in domestic flights (in Malaysia).... so, overall AAG became profitable. Unfortunately, AAX does not have anything to cover its losses.
3. There are other reasons such as having less control in markets further away from Malaysia due to regulations & logistics (also having to depend on foreign associates).
My typical analogy is simple. Take MAS and SIA after they split from MSA.
SIA was handling all the AAX routes while MAS was like handling the AA routes per se..
SIA was very profitable while MAS..we know the story.. This is one of the reasons I also put my stakes in AAX.
Somehow, I still feel IW has a Very good point. It's just does not makes sense. The stock seems to be going downhill since IPO. It looks like AAX is covering up for AA..
That's why a merger is the best things to do really..
If merge AAX & AirAsia then AirAsia's share price will tumble to below 50 sen (100% sure about this) for very obvious reasons. So, I won't wish for a merger.
In MAS & SIA's case, the very different results was due to different sets of managers: MAS was managed by Malays (and BN government) while SIA was managed by Chinese.
SIA did well in long haul routes because it is a full service airline (not budget airline like AAX) and Singapore's customers are much wealthier than Malaysian customers. Also, Singapore being an advanced business hub for import-export businesses has a lot of multi-nationals from different countries doing business through Singapore (Malaysia is a different story altogether... this led to the fate of MAS).
AAX in the eyes of the BOD just a minor supplement to AA. Just study the way they're running the companies we will understand what I meant. Hence what is your choice? AA or AAX ?
President Trump announced a new round of tariffs on China, set to start Oct. 1.
The President tweeted that “the 250 BILLION DOLLARS of goods and products from China, currently being taxed at 25%, will be taxed at 30%.”
“Additionally, the remaining 300 BILLION DOLLARS of goods and products from China, that was being taxed from September 1st at 10%, will now be taxed at 15%,” Trump wrote. The announcement came after Beijing unveiled a new round of retaliatory tariffs on about $75 billion worth of US goods. China will place additional tariffs of 5% or 10% on US imports starting on Sept. 1, according to a statement posted by China's Finance Ministry.
He want to declare National Emergency???? Crazy ...
Trump could treat China more like Iran and order sanctions, which would involve declaring a national emergency under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!
“NATIONAL EMERGENCY” Trump could treat China more like Iran and order sanctions, which would involve declaring a national emergency under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Once an emergency is declared, the law gives Trump broad authority to block the activities of individual companies or even entire economic sectors, former federal officials and legal experts said.
For example, by stating that Chinese theft of U.S. companies’ intellectual property constitutes a national emergency, Trump could order U.S. companies to avoid certain transactions, such as buying Chinese technology products, said Tim Meyer, director of the International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville.
Trump used a similar strategy earlier this year when he said illegal immigration was an emergency and threatened to put tariffs on all Mexican imports.
Past presidents have invoked IEEPA to freeze the assets of foreign governments, such as when former President Jimmy Carter in 1979 blocked assets owned by the Iranian government from passing through the U.S. financial system.
“The IEEPA framework is broad enough to do something blunt,” said Meyer.
Using it could risk unintended harm to the U.S. economy, said Peter Harrell, a former senior State Department official responsible for sanctions, now at the Center for a New American Security. U.S. officials would need to weigh the impact of China’s likely retaliation and how U.S. companies would be affected.
Invoking IEEPA could also trigger legal challenges in U.S. courts, said Mark Wu, a professor of international trade at Harvard Law School.
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT CURBS Another option that would not require congressional action would be to ban U.S. companies from competing for federal contracts if they also have operations in China, said Bill Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.
Such a measure might be targeted specifically at certain sectors since a blanket order would hit companies such as Boeing (BA.N), which is both a key weapons maker for the Pentagon and the top U.S. exporter.
Boeing opened its first completion plant for 737 airliners in China in December, a strategic investment aimed at building a sales lead over its European arch-rival Airbus (AIR.PA).
Boeing and Airbus have been expanding their footprint in China as they vie for orders in the country’s fast-growing aviation market, which is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest in the next decade.
1917 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT A far more dramatic measure, albeit highly unlikely, would be to invoke the Trading with the Enemy Act, which was passed by Congress during World War One.
The law allows the U.S. president to regulate and punish trade with a country with whom the United States is at war. Trump is unlikely to invoke this law because it would sharply escalate tensions with China, said Wu.
“It would be a much more dramatic step to declare China to be an enemy power with which the U.S. is at war, given the president has at times touted his friendship with and respect for President Xi (Jinping),” said Wu.
“That would amount to an overt declaration, while IEEPA would allow the Trump administration to take similar actions without as large of a diplomatic cost.”
@bahai4453 AAX in the eyes of the BOD just a minor supplement to AA. Just study the way they're running the companies we will understand what I meant. Hence what is your choice? AA or AAX ?
@risktransformer In MAS & SIA's case, the very different results was due to different sets of managers: MAS was managed by Malays (and BN government) while SIA was managed by Chinese.
This could actually work since AAX and AA are managed by the same company..
Interesting to see how this will eventually evolve..
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
pussycats
7,629 posts
Posted by pussycats > 2019-08-23 17:26 | Report Abuse
Enjoying McD nasi lemak now.
Very delicious.
Really worth it.